Edited by Shane Lems here: https://reformedreader.wordpress.com/2015/04/01/a-code-of-conduct-for-arguments-and-discussions/
1. The Fallibility Principle:
each participant in a discussion of a disputed issue should be willing to accept the fact that he or she is fallible, which means that one must acknowledge that he or she might not hold the most defensible position.
each participant in a discussion of a disputed issue should be willing to accept the fact that he or she is fallible, which means that one must acknowledge that he or she might not hold the most defensible position.
2. The Truth-Seeking Principle:
each participant should be committed to the task of earnestly searching for the truth or at least the most defensible position on the issue at stake. Therefore, one should be willing to seriously explore and examine other positions and look for insights in them.
each participant should be committed to the task of earnestly searching for the truth or at least the most defensible position on the issue at stake. Therefore, one should be willing to seriously explore and examine other positions and look for insights in them.
3. The Clarity Principle:
the formulations of all arguments should be free of any kind of linguistic confusion and clearly separated from other positions and issues.
the formulations of all arguments should be free of any kind of linguistic confusion and clearly separated from other positions and issues.
4. The Burden of Proof Principle:
the burden of proof for any position usually rests on the person who set forth the position. That person should provide an argument for his position.
the burden of proof for any position usually rests on the person who set forth the position. That person should provide an argument for his position.
5. The Charity Principle:
if a participant’s argument is reformulated by an opponent, it should be expressed in the strongest possible version that is consistent with the original intention of the arguer. The arguer should be given the benefit of the doubt in the restatements of their position.
if a participant’s argument is reformulated by an opponent, it should be expressed in the strongest possible version that is consistent with the original intention of the arguer. The arguer should be given the benefit of the doubt in the restatements of their position.
6. The Structural Principle:
one who argues for or against a position should use an argument that meets the fundamental structural requirements of a well-formed argument.
one who argues for or against a position should use an argument that meets the fundamental structural requirements of a well-formed argument.
7. The Relevance Principle:
one who presents a position should attempt to set forth only reasons that are directly related to the position.
one who presents a position should attempt to set forth only reasons that are directly related to the position.
8. The Acceptability Principle:
one who presents an argument should use reasons that are likely to be accepted by a rationally mature person and that meet standard criteria of acceptability.
one who presents an argument should use reasons that are likely to be accepted by a rationally mature person and that meet standard criteria of acceptability.
9. The Sufficiency Principle:
one who presents an argument should attempt to provide reasons that are sufficient in kind, number, and weight to support the position.
one who presents an argument should attempt to provide reasons that are sufficient in kind, number, and weight to support the position.
10. The Rebuttal Principle:
one who presents an argument should attempt to provide an effective rebuttal to all serious challenges to the argument and to the strongest arguments for viable alternative positions.
one who presents an argument should attempt to provide an effective rebuttal to all serious challenges to the argument and to the strongest arguments for viable alternative positions.
11. The Resolution Principle:
an issue should be considered resolved if the proponent for one of the alternative positions successfully defends that position by presenting a structurally sound argument that uses solid premises and grounds of support.
an issue should be considered resolved if the proponent for one of the alternative positions successfully defends that position by presenting a structurally sound argument that uses solid premises and grounds of support.
12. The Suspension of Judgment Principle:
if no position comes close to being successfully defended, or if two positions are defended equally, one should, in most cases, suspend judgment about the issue.
if no position comes close to being successfully defended, or if two positions are defended equally, one should, in most cases, suspend judgment about the issue.
13. The Reconsideration Principle:
if a successful argument for a position is later found by any participant to be flawed in a way that raises new doubts, one is obligated to reopen the issue for further consideration.
if a successful argument for a position is later found by any participant to be flawed in a way that raises new doubts, one is obligated to reopen the issue for further consideration.
